Freddy Patel, the MET’s pet pathologist, has today been found guilty of misconduct by the General Medical Council. Result!
Now the fucker should be charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice as we said in this artical
His evidence should also be dismissed with regard to the Ian Tomlinson case. The main reason cited by the CPS for the decision that the policeman in question would not face any charges was the failure of the three pathologists to reach an agreement. Surely today’s GMC verdict must now be taken into account, and the CPS decision reviewed, so justice can finally be served.
Dr Freddy Patel’s fitness to practise is impaired, a disciplinary panel of the General Medical Council ruled. He is now likely to face an application that he should be struck off or suspended from the medical register.
Patel’s examination of the newspaper vendor, Ian Tomlinson, when he said Ian Tomlinson had died of a heart attack, was later contradicted after a second examination and his role has become pivotal to the controversy surrounding the case.
The GMC panel’s decision came after weeks of inquiries into Patel’s work during four other postmortem examinations in London. In three cases he was judged to have demonstrated either “deficient professional performance” or misconduct.
Because he failed to record suspicious marks on the body of a five-year-old child in 2002, the police had to disinter her remains, the GMC said.
“You did not make any detailed record about the marks on the child’s body,” the panel ruled. “You did not make appropriate or adequate comment about them … You implied that there were marks of violence without remarking on whether or not they had a bearing on her death. Had you allowed your suspicions greater scope, then the exhumation of a child and the attendant potential distress might have been avoided … Your acts and omissions represented deficient professional performance.”
In relation to the cot death of a young baby in 2003, the panel said that Patel’s failure to obtain a full skeletal x-ray before he began an examination amounted to misconduct. It declared: “You deliberately ignored the guidelines so as to carry out the postmortem examination simply at a time of your own convenience, and very shortly before radiographers would have been readily available. Your failure to abide by the guidance [was] casual and incautious. It has also found your professional performance to have been deficient.”
During his autopsy on a woman in 2005, Patel abandoned standard procedures and forgot to weigh the deceased’s main internal organs. “There were good reasons for adhering to that guidance, and no good reasons for not doing so,” the GMC ruled. “Accordingly, the panel has found that your professional performance was deficient.” He was also found to have altered his findings in respect to the causes of death. “You told the inquest that you made the change ‘simply to satisfy the family’ … It is clearly fundamental to the wider public interest that forensic pathologists should be scrupulous in discharging their obligations to the court. Indeed it is central to their function. They must not set aside their professional judgment for any of the parties involved during or after a postmortem examination for reasons of expediency or anything else.” Patel’s misleading evidence was ruled to amount to misconduct.
“Overall the panel has concluded that your fitness to practise is impaired by reason of your misconduct, and your deficient professional performance.”
Adrian Hopkins QC, representing Patel, had argued that the two cases involving children should not reflect on his current fitness to practise, as postmortem examinations on children were now carried out by specialist paediatric pathologists and he had not undertaken one since 2004.
None of the cases before the GMC related to Ian Tomlinson, who died after being struck and shoved to the ground by riot police during protests in the City of London in April 2009.
Patel’s role in that case has become pivotal because the director of public prosecutions, Keir Starmer, said there was “no realistic prospect” of convicting anyone over the death owing to a conflict of evidence between the postmortem examinations carried out on the body.
Patel performed the first examination, which concluded that Ian Tomlinson had died of a heart attack, implying natural causes; a second examination contradicted that finding, suggesting instead that the newspaper vendor had died from internal bleeding.